CERD/C/106/D/61/2017 is the victim of racial discrimination because the authorities of the State party did not recognize and refused to register his ancestral marriage and, as a result, denied his wife a family reunification visa despite the marriage having been officiated by a legally and legitimately constituted community authority that was recognized by the community assembly, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the petitioner’s marriage had to meet the requirements under domestic law in order to be entered in the civil register. However, in light of article 1 of the State party’s Constitution, which establishes that Ecuador is an intercultural and plurinational State, article 11 (1) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 3 and the Committee’s general recommendation No. 23 (1997), the Committee found that, for the purposes of admissibility, the petitioner’s allegations concerning articles 1 (4), 2 (1) (a) and (2), and 5 (d) (iv) of the Convention had been sufficiently substantiated and should be considered on the merits. The Committee requested the parties to submit written observations and comments concerning the merits of the communication. For further information about the facts, the petitioner’s claims, the parties’ observations and comments on admissibility and the Committee’s decision thereon, refer to the decision on admissibility.4 State party’s observations on the merits 2.1 In its observations of 26 March 2020, the State party submitted that the Directorate General for Civil Registration, Identification and Certification is the entity under public law that is responsible for the administration and provision of services to process a person’s identity and civil-status-related information. 5 It is the exclusive prerogative of the civil registry to “solemnize, authorize, enter and register information and changes relating to the civil status of individuals”.6 2.2 The State party claims that the petitioner recognized the competence of the civil registry when he married for the first time in 1998, when he later registered his status as a widower and when, pursuant to article 78 of the Organic Act on Identity and Civil Data Management, he changed his name from Carlos Ranulfo Pérez Guartambel to Yaku Sacha Pérez Guartambel. Therefore, according to the State party, the petitioner could very well have had his second marriage, in 2013, officiated by the competent State authority. 2.3 The State party notes that the fact that the petitioner was able to change his name demonstrates precisely that the right to an identity can be exercised without discrimination. The State party also notes that the petitioner was able to engage in political activities with an intercultural focus when, in 2019, he registered his candidacy for and was elected prefect of Azuay Province. This illustrates, in the State party’s view, that there was no violation of article 1 (4) of the Convention. Specifically, the refusal to register the ancestral marriage was not a discriminatory act on the part of the civil registry, as it did not stem from an institutional stance against any particular racial group or particular ethnic origin. The State party recalls that in L.R. et al. v. Slovak Republic,7 the Committee required convincing evidence regarding the actions that constituted the alleged discriminatory treatment. The State party claims that there was no discrimination in this case. Indigenous peoples are able to officiate ancestral marriage rituals without discrimination because the constitutional and infra-constitutional framework promotes interculturality and plurinationality and does not prohibit the officiation of indigenous ancestral marriages. 2.4 The State party contends that there was no violation of article 2 (1) (a) of the Convention either and recalls that, under article 11 (2) of the Constitution, no person may be discriminated against on grounds of his or her ethnicity, birthplace, age, sex, gender identity, cultural identity, civil status, language, religion, ideology, political affiliation, criminal background, socioeconomic status, migration status, sexual orientation, state of health, HIV 3 4 5 6 7 GE.22-11683 Which establishes that “indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain, protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of their cultures”, such as ceremonies. CERD/C/100/D/61/2017. Organic Act on Identity and Civil Data Management, art. 5. Ibid., art. 7. CERD/C/66/D/31/2003 and CERD/C/66/D/31/2003/Corr.1. 3